collapsing by first author

OK, another PITA case we need to consider:

http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/5290/collapse-year-suffix/

Here, grouping for subsequent year-suffix generation happens not by
the totality of the authors, but only by first author. E.g., you get:

Doe, J, M. Marshall and D Smith (2000) …
Doe, J, N. Nash and D Small (2000) …

A citation like (Doe et al 2000a, b).

The easy solution on first look is just to add a new option; something like:

Thoughts?

Bruce

OK, another PITA case we need to consider:

http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/5290/collapse-year-suffix/

Here, grouping for subsequent year-suffix generation happens not by
the totality of the authors, but only by first author. E.g., you get:

Doe, J, M. Marshall and D Smith (2000) …
Doe, J, N. Nash and D Small (2000) …

A citation like (Doe et al 2000a, b).

The easy solution on first look is just to add a new option; something like:

Thoughts?

A general solution for controlling the collapsing of cites would be
welcome. For footnotes, the Bluebook gives this example of a first
(full-form) citation:

Harlan F. Stone, The Equitable Rights and Liabilities of Strangers to
a Contract (pts. 1 & 2), 18 Colum. L. Rev. 291 (1918), 19 Colum. L.
Rev. 177 (1919).

Handling this would require awareness of the special relationship
between the two discrete sources, but it would be nice to have
flexible infrastructure ready to go when hierarchical relations come
on stream. Not sure what the CSL would look like, but there are lots
of these halfway-house short forms in Bluebook for neighbouring cites.
This is just one of the hardest examples.

OK, another PITA case we need to consider:

http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/5290/collapse-year-suffix/

Here, grouping for subsequent year-suffix generation happens not by
the totality of the authors, but only by first author. E.g., you get:

Doe, J, M. Marshall and D Smith (2000) …
Doe, J, N. Nash and D Small (2000) …

A citation like (Doe et al 2000a, b).

The easy solution on first look is just to add a new option; something like:

Thoughts?

A general solution for controlling the collapsing of cites would be
welcome.

Well, the collapsing here is a really a separate issue. The more
important point for this example is sorting and grouping of the
reference list (upon which suffixes are generated) is based not on the
entire author string, but only the first author. Granted, though,
collapsing then depends on this sort of processing.

For footnotes, the Bluebook gives this example of a first
(full-form) citation:

Harlan F. Stone, The Equitable Rights and Liabilities of Strangers to
a Contract (pts. 1 & 2), 18 Colum. L. Rev. 291 (1918), 19 Colum. L.
Rev. 177 (1919).

Handling this would require awareness of the special relationship
between the two discrete sources, but it would be nice to have
flexible infrastructure ready to go when hierarchical relations come
on stream. Not sure what the CSL would look like, but there are lots
of these halfway-house short forms in Bluebook for neighbouring cites.
This is just one of the hardest examples.

Am not following this example.

Bruce

[snip]

A general solution for controlling the collapsing of cites would be
welcome.

Well, the collapsing here is a really a separate issue. The more
important point for this example is sorting and grouping of the
reference list (upon which suffixes are generated) is based not on the
entire author string, but only the first author. Granted, though,
collapsing then depends on this sort of processing.
[snip]

Harlan F. Stone, The Equitable Rights and Liabilities of Strangers to
a Contract (pts. 1 & 2), 18 Colum. L. Rev. 291 (1918), 19 Colum. L.
Rev. 177 (1919).

Handling this would require awareness of the special relationship
between the two discrete sources, but it would be nice to have
flexible infrastructure ready to go when hierarchical relations come
on stream. Not sure what the CSL would look like, but there are lots
of these halfway-house short forms in Bluebook for neighbouring cites.
This is just one of the hardest examples.

Am not following this example.

Ah, I gotcha. I was thinking footnotes, because I’m unfamiliar with
key-to-bib styles. I jumped to the conclusion that this was about
merging key references in the document proper.

Sounds like the best solution to me.

Simon

OK, I added this as a bibliography option (didn’t seem necessary for
citation). Feel free to implement as time/resources permit.

Sorting and grouping by author assumes by default that the string

includes the entire list

of authors. This option allows you to instead use first author only.

group-by =
element cs:option {
attribute name { “group-by” },
attribute value { “first-author” }
}

Bruce

Sorry for this dumb question but it is not clear to me what this
option is suppose to do: could you please give me a small example of
usage (with the expected output)?

TIA

Andrea

If you have two references:

  1. Doe, Jane and Steve Smith (1999)
  2. Doe, Jane and Sam Jones (1999)

You might typically sort and group those as two separate “authors”; so
in a bib list:

  1. Doe, Jane and Sam Jones (1999)
  2. Doe, Jane and Steve Smith (1999)

With this option, by contrast, you’d have:

  1. Doe, Jane and Sam Jones (1999a)
  2. Doe, Jane and Steve Smith (1999b)

Do you see what’s happening? You’re only sorting and grouping by the
first author. Thus there is two in the group, and you add the
year-suffix to both.

Bruce

Thank you.

This seems to be the easy part, though. What I do not entirely grasp
is the interaction (if there is any) of this option with citation
disambiguation rules (this is why I’d like to see an example of this
option in action in a style). I suppose disambiguation with names and
give names must be turned of, right?

Thanks again.

Andrea

See if the examples provided here clarify:

http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/5290/collapse-year-suffix/

Bruce

This seems to be the easy part, though. What I do not entirely grasp
is the interaction (if there is any) of this option with citation
disambiguation rules (this is why I’d like to see an example of this
option in action in a style). I suppose disambiguation with names and
give names must be turned of, right?

See if the examples provided here clarify:

http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/5290/collapse-year-suffix/

I’ve been looking ahead at the remaining items that I need to
implement, and like Andrea I’m puzzled by the group-by option. I’ve
read through this thread and the linked discussion, and it seems to me
that it’s just not needed. The original Zotero forum poster said,

… i want this:
Multi Citations
B. Baur et al. 2000a; B. Baur, et al. 2000b

That’s standard disambiguation working, with only year-suffix turned
on and with no collapsing enabled. The bibliography will probably
provide a longer list of authors, but disambiguation is based on the
citation keys, and these are ambiguous, so they get suffixes, and the
suffixes will turn up in the bibliography as well. The poster’s
actual problem, if you look back at his example, was just that his
style had et-al-use-first set to 2 instead of 1.

I probably didn’t help this thread by diving in with a non-sequitur
outburst of distraction about some next-generation Bluebook support
arcana that I must have been jonesing about that day. The best way of
making amends, I think, is to step forward now and suggest that
group-by be deleted from the schema, since it seems to be a no-op.

Frank

This seems to be the easy part, though. What I do not entirely grasp
is the interaction (if there is any) of this option with citation
disambiguation rules (this is why I’d like to see an example of this
option in action in a style). I suppose disambiguation with names and
give names must be turned of, right?

See if the examples provided here clarify:

http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/5290/collapse-year-suffix/

I’ve been looking ahead at the remaining items that I need to
implement, and like Andrea I’m puzzled by the group-by option. I’ve
read through this thread and the linked discussion, and it seems to me
that it’s just not needed. The original Zotero forum poster said,

… i want this:
Multi Citations
B. Baur et al. 2000a; B. Baur, et al. 2000b

That’s standard disambiguation working, with only year-suffix turned
on and with no collapsing enabled. The bibliography will probably
provide a longer list of authors, but disambiguation is based on the
citation keys, and these are ambiguous, so they get suffixes, and the
suffixes will turn up in the bibliography as well. The poster’s
actual problem, if you look back at his example, was just that his
style had et-al-use-first set to 2 instead of 1.

I probably didn’t help this thread by diving in with a non-sequitur
outburst of distraction about some next-generation Bluebook support
arcana that I must have been jonesing about that day. The best way of
making amends, I think, is to step forward now and suggest that
group-by be deleted from the schema, since it seems to be a no-op.

Frank

One addendum to this. The poster did request initial citations with
multiple authors, which assign year-suffixes based on the first
author. However, subsequent references were to include only the first
author; the solution therefore would be just be to assure that the CSL
processor uses the subsequent form for clash checking – that would be
enough to handle this. Since subsequent forms typically remove
information, they are the most likely to require disambiguation, so
that should probably be the normal practice anyway. So again, I’m
pretty sure this can be resolved without resort to a special option in
CSL.

Frank

I probably didn’t help this thread by diving in with a non-sequitur
outburst of distraction about some next-generation Bluebook support
arcana that I must have been jonesing about that day. The best way of
making amends, I think, is to step forward now and suggest that
group-by be deleted from the schema, since it seems to be a no-op.

I was obviously pretty sure that I was understanding the problem
correctly when I added that option. While I could well have been wrong
and it’s as simple as you suggest (which would be nice actually), I’m
rather overwhelmed with other work ATM.

Any chance you could write a test that illustrates your point, using
the specific example provided by that poster?

If it passes (e.g. generates the output the poster expects), then that
proves your point, and we can remove it.

Bruce

I probably didn’t help this thread by diving in with a non-sequitur
outburst of distraction about some next-generation Bluebook support
arcana that I must have been jonesing about that day. The best way of
making amends, I think, is to step forward now and suggest that
group-by be deleted from the schema, since it seems to be a no-op.

I was obviously pretty sure that I was understanding the problem
correctly when I added that option. While I could well have been wrong
and it’s as simple as you suggest (which would be nice actually), I’m
rather overwhelmed with other work ATM.

Any chance you could write a test that illustrates your point, using
the specific example provided by that poster?

If it passes (e.g. generates the output the poster expects), then that
proves your point, and we can remove it.

Here it is:

http://xbiblio.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/xbiblio/citeproc-js/branches/fbennett/std/humans/disambiguate_BasedOnEtAlSubsequent.txt?revision=919&view=markup

Frank

I probably didn’t help this thread by diving in with a non-sequitur
outburst of distraction about some next-generation Bluebook support
arcana that I must have been jonesing about that day. The best way of
making amends, I think, is to step forward now and suggest that
group-by be deleted from the schema, since it seems to be a no-op.

I was obviously pretty sure that I was understanding the problem
correctly when I added that option. While I could well have been wrong
and it’s as simple as you suggest (which would be nice actually), I’m
rather overwhelmed with other work ATM.

Any chance you could write a test that illustrates your point, using
the specific example provided by that poster?

If it passes (e.g. generates the output the poster expects), then that
proves your point, and we can remove it.

Here it is:

http://xbiblio.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/xbiblio/citeproc-js/branches/fbennett/std/humans/disambiguate_BasedOnEtAlSubsequent.txt?revision=919&view=markup

Frank

I’ll try to look at this soon, but in the meantime, I’m not sure the
"page-range" key makes sense, given that it precludes non-contiguous
values.

I’ll try to look at this soon, but in the meantime, I’m not sure the
"page-range" key makes sense, given that it precludes non-contiguous
values.

I agree. I was wondering what would happen with a newspaper article
printed on page 1 that continues on page 12 …

For collapsing year-suffixes and citation-numbers, I’m working on an
object that knows how to collapse with its neighbors. Maybe something
like that would be useful for page numbers as well. If we get to a
point where citation pinpoints are extracted directly from web pages
(rather than being hand-written), the ability to re-format a list of
numbers and number ranges dumped into the processor would come in
handy.

Frank

Any chance you could write a test that illustrates your point, using
the specific example provided by that poster?

If it passes (e.g. generates the output the poster expects), then that
proves your point, and we can remove it.

Here it is:

http://xbiblio.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/xbiblio/citeproc-js/branches/fbennett/std/humans/disambiguate_BasedOnEtAlSubsequent.txt?revision=919&view=markup

I’m a little lost (and pretty busy). Does this …

a) reflect the exact use case in that forum thread

b) pass with your code

c) show conclusively that we should remove the “group-by” attribute?

If it does, feel to remove the attribute yourself if you’re
comfortable doing so.

Bruce

Any chance you could write a test that illustrates your point, using
the specific example provided by that poster?

If it passes (e.g. generates the output the poster expects), then that
proves your point, and we can remove it.

Here it is:

http://xbiblio.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/xbiblio/citeproc-js/branches/fbennett/std/humans/disambiguate_BasedOnEtAlSubsequent.txt?revision=919&view=markup

I’m a little lost (and pretty busy). Does this …

a) reflect the exact use case in that forum thread

b) pass with your code, and thus …

c) show conclusively that we should remove the “group-by” attribute?

If it does, feel to remove the attribute yourself if you’re
comfortable doing so.

Bruce

Any chance you could write a test that illustrates your point, using
the specific example provided by that poster?

If it passes (e.g. generates the output the poster expects), then that
proves your point, and we can remove it.

Here it is:

http://xbiblio.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/xbiblio/citeproc-js/branches/fbennett/std/humans/disambiguate_BasedOnEtAlSubsequent.txt?revision=919&view=markup

I’m a little lost (and pretty busy). Does this …

a) reflect the exact use case in that forum thread

b) pass with your code, and thus …

c) show conclusively that we should remove the “group-by” attribute?

If it does, feel to remove the attribute yourself if you’re
comfortable doing so.

Thanks, I’ve gone ahead and committed this change.

Frank